THE

LIBERTARIAN

ENTERPRISE

Enron Schmearon!

In prior years, in more intellectually honest times, people at least
had the decency to call things by their proper names. Influence
peddling was considered graft, bribery or outright corruption. Today,
colorful expressions such as 'seeking access' or 'providing input'
are used instead. In prior years, in more intellectually honest
times, when government planners sought to centrally plan all of
public life, the practice was termed 'communism' or 'socialism.'
Today, its called 'capitalism' or the 'American Way.'

But we don't live in intellectually honest times. We live in an era
where partisan spin doctors are running amok - twisting our very
perceptions of reality from the normal, clear-headedness of logical
thinking into the lunatic self-deception so common among the denizens
of the District of Criminals.

Ever since the collapse of Enron has assaulted the public with its
gale force winds, talk radio has been saturated with a veritable
windstorm of nonsense pouring in from the likes of nationally
syndicated Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and others, all of whom
sound as if they were singing from the same hymn book - no doubt
provided to them by the RNC. Don't any of these people have a brain
they can call their own? Don't they understand how robotic they sound
when they utter the same inanities, no doubt drawn from the same
talking points? But then, it's their boy and his administration that
are potentially involved.

Speaking of their boy, George W. Bush, I can't help but express my
disappointment in his latest political misstep. I didn't vote for
Dubya - I haven't voted for a republican for President since Reagan.
When Dubya ascended to the throne, I didn't expect him to demonstrate
that he took our Second, Fourth or Fifth Amendment RIGHTS seriously -
or the rest of the Constitution for that matter. I have not been
disappointed. He has met all my expectations in this regard.
Nevertheless, I did expect him to be a standup guy and declare the
truth as best as he could and not hide behind 'executive privilege'
or 'confidential communications.'

In the early '90's, during the shameful years of the CLINTON
INFESTATION, the Hildebeast of New York, Senator Hitlery, held
private confidential meetings with her cronies and attempted to
centrally plan all of our health care needs. Deserving everything,
she was soundly thrashed for her totalitarian efforts at the hands of
talk radio hosts and listeners.

Clandestine national health care plans. Clandestine national energy
plans. There is no moral difference between the two activities.

I contend that neither Enron or any other corporation is entitled to
secrecy when they participate in activities that involve the planning
of other peoples lives without their express, knowing consent.
Corporations are public entities and have received government granted
privileges. Matters of national policy are everyone's concerned -
especially if our tax dollars are involved. The only exception to
this rule is that corporations should not be compelled to reveal
trade or industrial secrets or patents. Otherwise, full disclosure
should be the norm.

Since Enron's downfall, it has been revealed that the Bush
administration has held private consultations with Enron officials in
which it sought to centrally plan our energy needs. It has also been
revealed that Enron officials attempted many times to receive their
quid pro quo for all the campaign donations they bestowed upon
politicians of both parties in prior years. So far, there are no
reliable reports of the Bush administration caving in to Enron's
entreaties.

Nevertheless, let's be blunt.

Corporate officials don't pay their bribes today and expect their
return on investment today. No. They pay today with the expectation
that favorable regulatory policy or subsidy or other benefit will
come their way next month or even next year. They allow the passage
of time to cover their corrupt trail.

Meanwhile, the ongoing idiocy that is Senator John McCain has once
again reared its ugly head. Once again he is pushing for the empty
gesture that is campaign finance reform. Let's face it. Any campaign
reform legislation passed will contain loopholes that can be utilized
by clever attorneys to circumvent its intent. So what's the point?
Besides, campaign reform legislation is already on the books. It's
called the Constitution of the United States. All McCain has to do is
use whatever bully pulpit he has and harangued his colleagues into
confining their legislation to those powers that are expressly
delegated to them and nothing else!. In return, this would minimize
the motivation that special interest groups would have to bribe them!
This is why I refer to 'campaign finance reform' as "Stop Me Before I
Take Another Bribe!" legislation.

Let me leave you with the wisdom of Congressman Ron Paul -- the only
representative I know of who is worth a damn:

[W]e ought to be asking ourselves why corporations and interest
groups are willing to give politicians millions of dollars in the
first place. Obviously their motives are not altruistic. Simply
put, they do it because the stakes are so high. They know
government controls virtually every aspect of our economy and our
lives, and that they must influence government to protect their
interests.

Our federal government, which was intended to operate as a very
limited constitutional republic, has instead become a virtually
socialist leviathan that redistributes trillions of dollars. We
can hardly be surprised when countless special interests fight
for the money. The only true solution to the campaign money
problem is a return to a proper constitutional government that
does not control the economy. Big government and big campaign
money go hand in hand.

Ron Paul, R-Texas, "Texas Straight Talk," 2/4/02

James J. Odle is a splendid fellow who, unlike the vast majority of
so-called 'public servants' has a real job in the private sector
performing real work which a real employer voluntarily pays him to
perform. He is also a Life Member of Gun Owners of America.

The State vs. The PeopleThe Rise of the American Police Stateby Claire Wolfe and Aaron ZelmanWith an Introduction by James Bovard

Is America becoming a police state? Friends of liberty need to know.

Some say the U.S. is already a police state. Others watch the news
for signs that their country is about to cross an indefinable line. Since
September 11, 2001, the question has become more urgent. When do roving
wiretaps, random checkpoints, mysterious "detentions," and military tribunals
cross over from being emergency measures to being the tools of a government
permanently and irrevocably out of control?

The State vs. the People examines these crucial issues. But first,
it answers this fundamental question: "What is a police state?"